After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
I mean we really didn't have to come to that conclusion because he basically told us so in one of his first posts..
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52748270]Alright. So we've come to the conclusion that you don't want civilians to have a vast majority of guns.
Let me ask you this, what happens when America falls? It's going to fall, some day some how. Hell, it might just fall into totalitarianism the way things are going now. Who gets to have the guns when that happens?[/QUOTE]
Haven't you noticed how [I]literally no other country in the world other than America[/I] needs an armed populace? It's not the guns that are preventing the collapse of democracy. Matter of fact, the largest threats to American democracy right now are things you can't shoot at, corporate meddling, lobbying, gerrymandering, corruption. It takes more to upholding a nation than just firepower.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52748298]Haven't you noticed how [I]literally no other country in the world other than America[/I] needs an armed populace? It's not the guns that are preventing the collapse of democracy. Matter of fact, the largest threats to American democracy right now are things you can't shoot at, corporate meddling, lobbying, gerrymandering, corruption. It takes more to upholding a nation than just firepower.[/QUOTE]
The 2nd amendment isn't about upholding a nation, it's about a means to dismantle a corrupt one. Of course this has been argued plenty throughout the course of this thread so Im not going to reiterate everything that's already been said.
The fact of the matter is any nation is capable of falling into oppression of it's citizens. Look at Iran, a country that once was the bastion of modern Islam. Look at Spain and it's handling of Catalan, what happens if they swap rubber bullets for real bullets? To think that "we've come too far to fall for such things" is a poor choice in judgment over the human condition.
There comes a point where the people of any nation decides they had enough. Whether or not they become lambs to the slaughter is entirely dictated by the actions of those in power, and it's a hell of a lot harder to slaughter armed lambs.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748252]Again, I think a vision of the future of weapons technology would have turned the founding fathers white as a sheet. I guess all we can really do is speculate, but I truly do believe that seeing what our weapons are capable of today would have led to a substantially different second amendment.[/QUOTE]
They also had no concept of the internet, where you can organize anything from drug deals to terrorist attacks without being detected. Shall we allow intelligence services unlimited access to everything we do online?
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52748298]Haven't you noticed how [I]literally no other country in the world other than America[/I] needs an armed populace? It's not the guns that are preventing the collapse of democracy. Matter of fact, the largest threats to American democracy right now are things you can't shoot at, corporate meddling, lobbying, gerrymandering, corruption. It takes more to upholding a nation than just firepower.[/QUOTE]
As Corrupt as our government is, it's not as bad as other countries like the former soviet states. The Second amendment tells other nations that if you want to invade us you not only have to take into account our massive military. But the armed population that are more than willing to fight to keep their homes safe.
Theres a running joke among me and my friends that if any nation wants to invade the US, they can take over through New York and California.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748252][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]Dear Alexander Hamilton: we can do that now with a single bomb.[/URL]
Again, I think a vision of the future of weapons technology would have turned the founding fathers white as a sheet. I guess all we can really do is speculate, but I truly do believe that seeing what our weapons are capable of today would have led to a substantially different second amendment.[/quote]
Nukes are nowhere near the same level as small arms. I don't believe they would have been overly-concerned with machine guns and assault rifles and the like. If we're talking about where to draw the line though, George Orwell had an interesting way of doing so:
[QUOTE]It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon—so long as there is no answer to it—gives claws to the weak.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate complex weapon. You will never, ever see them in civilian hands, they're simply far too resource intensive and complex for private parties to produce. Tanks and artillery are regulated the same as suppressors and short-barreled rifles, but you rarely see M1 Abrams or M777 howitzers and the like in private ownership simply because of the cost. An AR or an AK? That's the modern version of the musket. It's the everyman's rifle.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748252]I've even considered picking up a weapon for the home, just in case.[/quote]
Well that's just a little bit hypocritical, don't you think? Arms for me, not for thee? Unless you were planning on getting something like a Mosin-Nagant or a break-action shotgun, in which case I will tell you there are far better options on the market for home-defense. ARs, man. They fucking rock.
[quote]I also believe that the longer we wait, the worse the problem is going to get.[/quote]
The same could be said for a lot of our problems, global warming especially. That little issue right there is part of why I'm dead-set on being allowed to own guns. The way things are going now, life's going to get worse in every conceivable way for all of us, and then some. We're not going to get better as a country, not as a planet, not as a species. We're living in the last century (if that) of a golden age. Hard times are coming. Best be prepared to fend for yourself.
[quote]Look, for what's it worth, I'm sorry if I offended any of ya'll. I obviously have strong feelings about this, and while I get a bit too "spirited" in defending them, I honestly don't think less of any of you for having or enjoying firearms.[/QUOTE]
Likewise, I don't think less of you for holding the beliefs you do. I categorically disagree with them, but I understand your heart is in the right place. I understand the rationale behind gun control, I just don't think the trade off is worth it.
[QUOTE=justinl132;52748318]As Corrupt as our government is, it's not as bad as other countries like the former soviet states. The Second amendment tells other nations that if you want to invade us you not only have to take into account our massive military. But the armed population that are more than willing to fight to keep their homes safe.
Theres a running joke among me and my friends that if any nation wants to invade the US, they can take over through New York and California.[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. Is this really what Americans think? Other nations don't want to invade America because not only do they economically rely on US institutions and trade, but they also don't want to fuck with literally the strongest military in the entire world.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52748307]The 2nd amendment isn't about upholding a nation, it's about a means to dismantle a corrupt one. Of course this has been argued plenty throughout the course of this thread so Im not going to reiterate everything that's already been said.
The fact of the matter is any nation is capable of falling into oppression of it's citizens. Look at Iran, a country that once was the bastion of modern Islam. Look at Spain and it's handling of Catalan, what happens if they swap rubber bullets for real bullets? To think that "we've come too far to fall for such things" is a poor choice in judgment over the human condition.
There comes a point where the people of any nation decides they had enough. Whether or not they become lambs to the slaughter is entirely dictated by the actions of those in power, and it's a hell of a lot harder to slaughter armed lambs.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's not really working for that purpose, at all, or do you feel like American politicians are [I]less[/I] corrupt than they used to be? The office of the President has only acquired more and more power over time, guns haven't prevented that, not even assassinations have prevented that. If armed civilians are supposed to serve as a check for stopping the government from overreaching, then they've failed. A man with a gun doesn't have better judgement than a man that doesn't, and its foolish to assume that those armed civilians cannot be manipulated.
I come from a nation which collapsed into a dictatorship. You have this very ancient notion of totalitarianism, in that it has to necessarily arrive through armed revolution, that's not how it is nowadays. All it takes is a sufficiently charismatic leader, and a susceptible population, and they will willingly submit to autocracy without bloodshed, and without anybody ever noticing until its far too late. The guns will not make a damn difference, because that's not where power lies.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52748343]No, not at all. Is this really what Americans think? Other nations don't want to invade America because not only do they economically rely on US institutions and trade, but they also don't want to fuck with literally the strongest military in the entire world.
Well, it's not really working for that purpose, at all, or do you feel like American politicians are [I]less[/I] corrupt than they used to be? The office of the President has only acquired more and more power over time, guns haven't prevented that, not even assassinations have prevented that. If armed civilians are supposed to serve as a check for stopping the government from overreaching, then they've failed. A man with a gun doesn't have better judgement than a man that doesn't, and its foolish to assume that those armed civilians cannot be manipulated.
I come from a nation which collapsed into a dictatorship. You have this very ancient notion of totalitarianism, in that it has to necessarily arrive through armed revolution, that's not how it is nowadays. All it takes is a sufficiently charismatic leader, and a susceptible population, and they will willingly submit to autocracy without bloodshed, and without anybody ever noticing until its far too late. The guns will not make a damn difference, because that's not where power lies.[/QUOTE]
Oh I'm plenty aware of how well people can be manipulated, making guns for a living it's hard not to find someone who voted for Trump in the business. Once again, the 2nd amendment is to provide a means when the people say that's enough. Often times it isn't the majority of the people, because most people just want to live there lives and will play by the rules so they don't get fucked with. It's not like everyone on the American continent wanted to break away from England during our revolution, and a vast majority took absolutely no part in it what so ever.
The guns are there for those who've said they've had enough, who say it's time to dismantle the system and start over. And of course that is a dramatically simplified way of describing the actions which would take place. There's a pretty damn good chance a lot of folks would die in the process, and it may not amount to any change at all. But it's a fighting chance, which is a lot more than you could ever have unarmed.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52748343]I come from a nation which collapsed into a dictatorship. You have this very ancient notion of totalitarianism, in that it has to necessarily arrive through armed revolution, that's not how it is nowadays. All it takes is a sufficiently charismatic leader, and a susceptible population, and they will willingly submit to autocracy without bloodshed, and without anybody ever noticing until its far too late. The guns will not make a damn difference, because that's not where power lies.[/QUOTE]
How long do you think Maduro would last if every person protesting his regime had a rifle hanging on their wall?
Why do you think governments impose gun control? It's not a public safety issue, that's just a convenient excuse. It's about removing threats to their power. It's about [I]people[/I] control.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52748373]Why do you think governments impose gun control? It's not a public safety issue, that's just a convenient excuse. It's about removing threats to their power. It's about [I]people[/I] control.[/QUOTE]
i think that's an unsupportable blanket statement
the current gun laws we have came about because a guy went to a school and shot 16 children, a teacher and himself, and the public just didn't want anything to do with guns
i can understand why your view might make sense in an environment where gun ownership was desired or close to 50/50, but at least in the UK, gun ownership is a total non-issue so I would hesitate to say it's a "people control" measure
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52748389]i think that's an unsupportable blanket statement
the current gun laws we have came about because a guy went to a school and shot 16 children, a teacher and himself, and the public just didn't want anything to do with guns[/QUOTE]
Granted. You can apply what I just said to quite a few governments though. South American in particular seems to have a problem with it.
EDIT: I really need to sleep, I'll be back on tomorrow though. G'night.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52748373]How long do you think Maduro would last if every person protesting his regime had a rifle hanging on their wall?
Why do you think governments impose gun control? It's not a public safety issue, that's just a convenient excuse. It's about removing threats to their power. It's about [I]people[/I] control.[/QUOTE]
About as long as he has. Venezuela has a [I]shitload[/I] of guns. And better than your guns, they're completely unregulated because they overwhelming majority of them are illegal. I'm talking .50 sniper rifles, fully automatic machine guns, grenades, you can even rent them, if someone [I]wanted[/I] to shoot Maduro, they could. Yet he's still in power, why is he in power? Because the keys to power are in his hands. You could shoot him and it still wouldn't be the end of him. It doesn't matter at all that there's more people who are against him than those that are with him, there is no way to fight him in a way that wouldn't result in torching whatever country there is left, even if you could bring together all opposition into a coherent force. True "people control" came with currency controls, not with the revocation of concealed carry licenses.
Again, it really doesn't matter how well armed your populace is. You already voted somebody like Trump in, all it takes is for this populist trend to continue gaining momentum and before you know it, the corruption will spread to the point where it won't matter anymore if you are armed or not.
it's interesting to see that major discussion revolve about various 'bans'
barely any discussion about detection of shooter position
and speeding up reaction of the police forces alike on the shooting itself
as part of defenses of any bigger events with major gathering of citizens ...
yet, for over decade exist small (mobile) devices to detect shot origin in 3D environment
e.g. [URL]http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/boomerang/[/URL]
and variants for single soldier [URL]http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/boomerang_warriorx/[/URL]
easily mountable on vehicles , on buildings in cities , on movable stand ... as needed
with today's processing power, networking abilities you could easily prepare up system
which would be able to detect even multiple sources of shots in urban environment
this combined with some over-watch police-sniper units (in events of major citizen gatherings)
would also ensure that if someone tries something similar in future (no matter on weapon(s) used)
thus such threat could and will be neutralized quite fast !
i really hope the reason the shooter ceased to shoot so early (~10 minutes mark)
was that someone wounded him (e.g. police sniper or the security thru the doors)
yes , i fully get this is 'reaction' based and will not prevent the event from unfolding after it happens
but the reaction times and the clear effect of being killed by police forces may prevent many from trying
[QUOTE=Dwarden;52748469]it's interesting to see that major discussion revolve about various 'bans'
barely any discussion about detection of shooter position
and speeding up reaction of the police forces alike on the shooting itself
as part of defenses of any bigger events with major gathering of citizens ...
yet, for over decade exist small (mobile) devices to detect shot origin in 3D environment
e.g. [URL]http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/boomerang/[/URL]
and variants for single soldier [URL]http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/boomerang_warriorx/[/URL]
easily mountable on vehicles , on buildings in cities , on movable stand ... as needed
with today's processing power, networking abilities you could easily prepare up system
which would be able to detect even multiple sources of shots in urban environment
this combined with some over-watch police-sniper units (in events of major citizen gatherings)
would also ensure that if someone tries something similar in future (no matter on weapon(s) used)
thus such threat could and will be neutralized quite fast !
i really hope the reason the shooter ceased to shoot so early (~10 minutes mark)
was that someone wounded him (e.g. police sniper or the security thru the doors)
yes , i fully get this is 'reaction' based and will not prevent the event from unfolding after it happens
but the reaction times and the clear effect of being killed by police forces may prevent many from trying[/QUOTE]
Chicago does have a system like this. I believe it was found to hbe ineffective.
On the subject of the whole founding fathers argument, I really don't think it would have mattered what weapons advances would take in the far future. They had just finished waging a bloody insurrection against their motherland and wanted to make sure any government would be dissuaded from turning against our people. If the British had miniguns at the time, the founding fathers sure as hell would want the people to at least be able to match that amount of firepower.
The spirit and intent of the amendment was the populace should be able to legally obtain conventional weapons of any kind (including ACTUAL weapons of war) in the event they are needed to defend the country or themselves.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;52748515]Chicago does have a system like this. I believe it was found to hbe ineffective.[/QUOTE]
the military grade systems work well tho so i wonder what went wrong in the Chicago one
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52748444]About as long as he has. Venezuela has a [I]shitload[/I] of guns. And better than your guns, they're completely unregulated because they overwhelming majority of them are illegal. I'm talking .50 sniper rifles, fully automatic machine guns, grenades, you can even rent them, if someone [I]wanted[/I] to shoot Maduro, they could. Yet he's still in power, why is he in power? Because the keys to power are in his hands. You could shoot him and it still wouldn't be the end of him. It doesn't matter at all that there's more people who are against him than those that are with him, there is no way to fight him in a way that wouldn't result in torching whatever country there is left, even if you could bring together all opposition into a coherent force. True "people control" came with currency controls, not with the revocation of concealed carry licenses.
Again, it really doesn't matter how well armed your populace is. You already voted somebody like Trump in, all it takes is for this populist trend to continue gaining momentum and before you know it, the corruption will spread to the point where it won't matter anymore if you are armed or not.[/QUOTE]
People control is all-encompassing, man. It's not just weapons, it's control of private economy, it's control of speech, it's control of freedom-of-movement. Taking away weapons is simply opening the way for the rest of it.
With regards to access to weapons, I say it absolutely does matter. If your country already has assault rifles in the hands of the civilians, there is zero excuse for Maduro to have not been Mussolini'd yet.
Having a circular saw doesn't mean you can just sit back and expect your house to build itself. Ammonia-nitrate fertilizer is only a precursor to explosives. Similarly, firearms access is only a precursor to armed revolt. Effective organization and mobilization is paramount. Weapons are critical, yes, but they are not the decisive factor - armies need manpower, need training, need logistics, need organization. Most critically, they need effective, decisive leadership.
[QUOTE]there is no way to fight him in a way that wouldn't result in torching whatever country there is left[/QUOTE]
Then you need to consider very carefully which would have the worse outcome: leaving Maduro in power, or violently overthrowing him. At what point does leaving him in place become more intolerable than a civil war? The people of Libya had little trouble making that decision when Gaddafi ordered jets to drop bombs on protests. What's your breaking point? When people start dying in the hundreds of thousands to famine? When the army starts massacring people in the hundreds and thousands? When opposition leaders start being rounded up at gunpoint and forced into vans?
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52748722]On the subject of the whole founding fathers argument, I really don't think it would have mattered what weapons advances would take in the far future. They had just finished waging a bloody insurrection against their motherland and wanted to make sure any government would be dissuaded from turning against our people. If the British had miniguns at the time, the founding fathers sure as hell would want the people to at least be able to match that amount of firepower.
The spirit and intent of the amendment was the populace should be able to legally obtain conventional weapons of any kind (including ACTUAL weapons of war) in the event they are needed to defend the country or themselves.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely.
BDA's argument is fundementally missing the point. The founders didn't write the 2nd amendment because they were doing some cost benefit analysis between the amount of damage a musket could do in the hands of a murderer and the likelihood of using guns in a positive way. They were recognizing a basic human right of having the people of a society have the ability to fight back against their government. This was in contrast to what had come before them. Kings didn't want their peasants to think of themselves as the final authority, but the founders of the US did.
Personally, I think the increased firepower of modern weapons would make the founders more fervent about arming the populace so that they would be able to effectively resist corrupt government oppression.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748168]Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I do not believe that the founding fathers could have even [I]conceived[/I] of the weapons of war we utilize today. If anything, I think seeing limited viability novelty weapons like the Girandoni would only reinforce their preconceptions about what would be realistic for firearms to achieve. Even in their wildest imaginings, I don't think they could have possibly foreseen just how far weapons technology has come.
I mean, can you even imagine trying to [I]explain[/I] something like [B]this[/B] to Alexander Hamilton? lol
[video=youtube;QGE23Uykd1Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGE23Uykd1Y[/video]
[I]Okay, Hammy, imagine there's something that can shoot 100 bullets every single second, right? And, if that's not enough, Most of those bullets are on fire so you can see where they're going. On top of that, all of those bullets are also tiny bombs that explodes on contact, right? Now, we take this gun, and put it on a machine that soars through the sky by spinning around big swords.[/I]
Or how about missiles?
[I]Ham, let me tell you about intercontinental missiles. These things are, twenty, thirty feet tall, yeah? Just big metal tubes, and we fill those tubes with explosive liquid. At the end of it, we can have a bomb so big that it can flatten entire cities. Anyway, these things ride a continuous explosion all the way into outer space, where a series of machines that we also shot into space help steer them where they need to go. These missile can then fly just about all the way around the world and impact an area with enough accuracy to punch through the roof of your car, which is a whole other thing we'll have to get into later. [/I]
Most of the technology we have today, especially our weapons technology, is so incomprehensibly advanced that somebody born in the 1700s would think it was honest-to-god witchcraft.
Our personal firearms? Same thing. I would be fucking [B]flabbergasted[/B] if some secret notes were found under a pile of rocks somewhere revealing that the founding fathers, while drafting the second amendment, said something to the effect of, [I]"hey, what about 230 years from now when Joe Schmoe can walk into one of our countries tens of thousands of gun stores and purchase a weapon that would allow him to almost singlehandedly mow down an entire company of our best soldiers in seconds?"[/I][/QUOTE]
He'd think "This would be great for dealing with the Iroquois!"
[QUOTE=Ridge;52749184]He'd think "This would be great for dealing with the Iroquois!"[/QUOTE]
Which is even funnier considering the helicopter showcased in BDA's video is the Iroquois.
Hell, Ben Franklin would order 10 of the things.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52748307]The 2nd amendment isn't about upholding a nation, it's about a means to dismantle a corrupt one. Of course this has been argued plenty throughout the course of this thread so Im not going to reiterate everything that's already been said.
The fact of the matter is any nation is capable of falling into oppression of it's citizens. Look at Iran, a country that once was the bastion of modern Islam. Look at Spain and it's handling of Catalan, what happens if they swap rubber bullets for real bullets? To think that "we've come too far to fall for such things" is a poor choice in judgment over the human condition.
There comes a point where the people of any nation decides they had enough. Whether or not they become lambs to the slaughter is entirely dictated by the actions of those in power, and it's a hell of a lot harder to slaughter armed lambs.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but you already have a tyrannical government that sells its citizens to those who can make the most profit with them and I don't see you or Mr. Cletus with his 15 shotguns doing anything to stop it.
Even if you did pick up arms, it'd be you against predator drones with hellfire missiles that can kill you and your gathering of Sic Semper Tyranis dudes in the blink of an eye.
The "Defense against a tyrannical government" excuse is the weakest line I've ever seen anyone say about anything ever.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52749284]Sorry but you already have a tyrannical government that sells its citizens to those who can make the most profit with them and I don't see you or Mr. Cletus with his 15 shotguns doing anything to stop it.
Even if you did pick up arms, it'd be you against predator drones with hellfire missiles that can kill you and your gathering of Sic Semper Tyranis dudes in the blink of an eye.
The "Defense against a tyrannical government" excuse is the weakest line I've ever seen anyone say about anything ever.[/QUOTE]
Buddy if drones started dropping bombs on people in this country, the hell if I'm letting who ever responsible get away with it. I'll fucking die to try and prevent more, gladly.
And if it came to drone striking people here, you'd have to deal with more than just me, there would be thousands, if not millions of people who are like minded.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52749284]Sorry but you already have a tyrannical government that sells its citizens to those who can make the most profit with them and I don't see you or Mr. Cletus with his 15 shotguns doing anything to stop it.
Even if you did pick up arms, it'd be you against predator drones with hellfire missiles that can kill you and your gathering of Sic Semper Tyranis dudes in the blink of an eye.
The "Defense against a tyrannical government" excuse is the weakest line I've ever seen anyone say about anything ever.[/QUOTE]
Could you imagine what would happen if the US government started drone bombing it's own citizens in the event of a large scale uprising?
Also, can predator drones enforce curfews or round up agitators?
Can a drone or a jet or an ICBM stand on a street corner and enforce the will of the government with no assembly laws?
Sure the government could just kill everybody with bombs and drones, rather Pyrrhic but hey it could work.
In addition, the worldwide 24 hour news cycle means that every citizen killed, every bombed dropped is sympathy for the citizens and disdain for the government. People around the world would cringe in horror at the evil they'd see on their TV screens.
This isn't the 1860's, the US can't send soldiers to burn down peoples' houses and expect the international community to not say anything.
And let's not forget that American soldiers might have some qualms about shooting Americans.
"Hellfire missiles and drones". Because as the last 50 years of US intervention in foreign conflicts have taught us, air power and bombardment can win a war by itself, no manpower required.
[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52749322]Could you imagine what would happen if the US government started drone bombing it's own citizens in the event of a large scale uprising?
Also, can predator drones enforce curfews or round up agitators?
Can a drone or a jet or an ICBM stand on a street corner and enforce the will of the government with no assembly laws?
Sure the government could just kill everybody with bombs and drones, rather Pyrrhic but hey it could work.
In addition, the worldwide 24 hour news cycle means that every citizen killed, every bombed dropped is sympathy for the citizens and disdain for the government. People around the world would cringe in horror at the evil they'd see on their TV screens.
This isn't the 1860's, the US can't send soldiers to burn down peoples' houses and expect the international community to not say anything.
And let's not forget that American soldiers might have some qualms about shooting Americans.
"Hellfire missiles and drones". Because as the last 50 years of US intervention in foreign conflicts have taught us, air power and bombardment can win a war by itself, no manpower required.[/QUOTE]
Yeah no, not what I'm saying.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52749297]Buddy if drones started dropping bombs on people in this country, the hell if I'm letting who ever responsible get away with it. I'll fucking die to try and prevent more, gladly.
And if it came to drone striking people here, you'd have to deal with more than just me, there would be thousands, if not millions of people who are like minded.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I'm saying guns are 0 defense against the government in the first place at this point, so the argument itself is moot.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52749358]Yeah, but I'm saying guns are 0 defense against the government in the first place at this point, so the argument itself is moot.[/QUOTE]
Just the ability to project some form of violence back at a tyrannical government is enough. To hell if they have drones or bombs or tanks, they don't matter when you fight an adversary that is willing to die for their country. Look at the Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghans, and Iraqis. They're all examples of doing this against a superior adversary. Saying we couldn't do the same is wrong because history has already shown us this to not always be true.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52749358]
Yeah, but I'm saying guns are 0 defense against the government in the first place at this point, so the argument itself is moot.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see some evidence to support that claim
also we're still waiting for the /s
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52748168]Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I do not believe that the founding fathers could have even [I]conceived[/I] of the weapons of war we utilize today. If anything, I think seeing limited viability novelty weapons like the Girandoni would only reinforce their preconceptions about what would be realistic for firearms to achieve. Even in their wildest imaginings, I don't think they could have possibly foreseen just how far weapons technology has come.
I mean, can you even imagine trying to [I]explain[/I] something like [B]this[/B] to Alexander Hamilton? lol
[video=youtube;QGE23Uykd1Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGE23Uykd1Y[/video]
[I]Okay, Hammy, imagine there's something that can shoot 100 bullets every single second, right? And, if that's not enough, Most of those bullets are on fire so you can see where they're going. On top of that, all of those bullets are also tiny bombs that explodes on contact, right? Now, we take this gun, and put it on a machine that soars through the sky by spinning around big swords.[/I]
Or how about missiles?
[I]Ham, let me tell you about intercontinental missiles. These things are, twenty, thirty feet tall, yeah? Just big metal tubes, and we fill those tubes with explosive liquid. At the end of it, we can have a bomb so big that it can flatten entire cities. Anyway, these things ride a continuous explosion all the way into outer space, where a series of machines that we also shot into space help steer them where they need to go. These missile can then fly just about all the way around the world and impact an area with enough accuracy to punch through the roof of your car, which is a whole other thing we'll have to get into later. [/I]
Most of the technology we have today, especially our weapons technology, is so incomprehensibly advanced that somebody born in the 1700s would think it was honest-to-god witchcraft.
Our personal firearms? Same thing. I would be fucking [B]flabbergasted[/B] if some secret notes were found under a pile of rocks somewhere revealing that the founding fathers, while drafting the second amendment, said something to the effect of, [I]"hey, what about 230 years from now when Joe Schmoe can walk into one of our countries tens of thousands of gun stores and purchase a weapon that would allow him to almost singlehandedly mow down an entire company of our best soldiers in seconds?"[/I][/QUOTE]
The founders didn't have to think up specific weapons like mini guns and missiles to realize and understand that technology evolves over time, which obviously includes weapons.
Hell, the development of canon alone between the 1600s and 1700s would be enough to have them realize that.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52749284]Sorry but you already have a tyrannical government that sells its citizens to those who can make the most profit with them and I don't see you or Mr. Cletus with his 15 shotguns doing anything to stop it.
Even if you did pick up arms, it'd be you against predator drones with hellfire missiles that can kill you and your gathering of Sic Semper Tyranis dudes in the blink of an eye.
The "Defense against a tyrannical government" excuse is the weakest line I've ever seen anyone say about anything ever.[/QUOTE]
Circa 1770: 'Even if you did pick up arms, it'd be you against field artillery and His Majesty's Royal Navy that can kill you and your gathering of Sic Semper Tyranis dudes in the blink of an eye.' It's not like every backwoods farmer who fought in the Revolution had identical equipment to what was at the time the most powerful military in the entire world.
[editline]5th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52749358]Yeah no, not what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]
Then what are you saying? He's giving you all the reasons why AR-15s not being able to go toe-to-toe with Hellfires isn't relevant to resisting a government force.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52749410]Circa 1770: 'Even if you did pick up arms, it'd be you against field artillery and His Majesty's Royal Navy that can kill you and your gathering of Sic Semper Tyranis dudes in the blink of an eye.' It's not like every backwoods farmer who fought in the Revolution had identical equipment to what was at the time the most powerful military in the entire world.
[editline]5th October 2017[/editline]
Then what are you saying? He's giving you all the reasons why AR-15s not being able to go toe-to-toe with Hellfires isn't relevant to resisting a government force.[/QUOTE]
He's just hand-waving away arguments he doesn't like so he can keep his opinion.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52749039]I agree completely.
BDA's argument is fundementally missing the point. The founders didn't write the 2nd amendment because they were doing some cost benefit analysis between the amount of damage a musket could do in the hands of a murderer and the likelihood of using guns in a positive way. They were recognizing a basic human right of having the people of a society have the ability to fight back against their government. This was in contrast to what had come before them. Kings didn't want their peasants to think of themselves as the final authority, but the founders of the US did.
Personally, I think the increased firepower of modern weapons would make the founders more fervent about arming the populace so that they would be able to effectively resist corrupt government oppression.[/QUOTE]
To stand a chance against their government people would need drones, m1 abrams tanks, javelins and MRLS.
You talk cost benefit a musket was OK because its damage was limited you could shoot and kill up to 3 people per minute so the damage is mitigated. An AR-15 or even a glock could kill far far far more than that. Back then there were no police so self defence was regarded differently and much of the country was frontier with much less government control. So the costs and higher and the benefits are lower.
Also by what grasping-at-straws definition or convention is "fight back against their government" a human right? The price of a print goes up, can I choose "fight back against my government" because it's "my human right". Lame argument mang
You can be anti gun control without resorting to these paltry points.
US already has so many guns a recall would be near impossible. US has a load of politicians who've made it their platform to keep guns (almost like its a political card they use to dupe people into voting for them) and its a part of your culture, not just shooting but in expecting people to have guns. In the US cops shooting civs is much higher than the UK (per capita) because in the US the cops can reasonably expect the person to have a deadly weapon. For better or for worse guns are there to stay. That's better than trying to justify it with nonsense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.